Read the Room: Analysing media narratives and what’s behind them.
The Spin: Dissecting a recent comms win and what to learn from it.
Eyes Up: Opportunities, tenders, and calls for input.
On the Blog: Highlights from this month’s Don’t Verb Nouns posts.
Worth Your Time: Smart finds we’ve bookmarked for you.
Read the Room: Why paraphrasing matters
If there’s one thing the scribes at The Australian Financial Review hate more than fringe benefits tax, it’s working from home (aka WFH). No surprise, really, as it’s the paper of bosses and landlords. Its readers and advertisers include plenty of employers and commercial property players who’d much rather see workers back at their desks five days a week.
Those were the days — everyone at their work stations, no-one on mute, and the boss able to keep a keen eye on any work-shy slackers. Photo by Museums Victoria on Unsplash
Now, there’s rarely a memo from on high in news outlets telling journalists how to frame an issue such as this. But like in any organisation, there’s a “vibe”, and if you want to get ahead, you toe the line and learn to be in tune with it.
Which brings us to Phil Coorey, who recently weighed in on Victoria’s proposal to enshrine WFH rights in law. In a recent column on the topic, he wrote:
“Even Chalmers, as he slid along the fence on Wednesday when asked about the Victorian proposal, acknowledged the productivity benefits of work from home were contested.”
Sounds like the Treasurer is hedging his bets, maybe even quietly backing the line that WFH is the worst thing that’s happened to productivity since the 48-hour week. But here’s what Jim Chalmers actually said, (in response to a question from Phil himself):
“First of all, the idea that work from home can only be bad for productivity is contested. And I think it depends on the industry, depends on the arrangements, depends on the workers – whether or not work from home can be part of the solution to our productivity challenge rather than just part of the problem. So, I think that’s contested. There’s not a unanimous view or even a kind of broad consensus around whether work from home is good or bad for productivity. I think the experience has shown the more that we can make it easier for people to participate in the workforce, to contribute their skills, the better. And work from home has a role to play there.” [Emphasis added.]
Let’s unpack that, because it shows how framing works.
1. Narrow contestation: Chalmers pushes back on an extreme view: that WFH is only bad. He’s not saying WFH’s benefits are in doubt across the board. He’s challenging a specific negative claim with that statement.
2. Contextual qualifiers: Chalmers makes it clear the effects depend on the setting: the industry, the arrangement, the worker. In other words, there’s nuance involved.
3. Lack of consensus: This is the bit Phil latches onto like Rose and that Titanic door, the line about there being no “broad consensus”. It’s a genuine statement, but incomplete without the rest of the response.
4. Participation framing: Chalmers finishes by arguing that WFH can actually boost workforce participation, and by extension, productivity. That’s a clear positive.
So what did Phil do? He dropped the “only bad” qualifier, skipped the conditional positives and participation argument, and compressed the whole answer into a line that picks out any negatives and fits the AFR’s ongoing “WFH is suspect” narrative. And by describing Chalmers as “sliding along the fence” (even though that referred to the Victorian proposal) he added a tone of indecisiveness, despite Chalmers being pretty certain in his backing of WFH.
Phil does, however, throw in a wet-lettuce defence.
“It needs to be stated that no one in politics or business believes in getting rid of work-from-home. It is too ingrained and too popular.”
But that’s not a defence, it’s an electoral reality check. Despite his attempts to sound balanced, Phil’s not saying WFH is good; he’s saying it’s politically untouchable because it’s popular. Like the weekend. Or the ability to breathe.
Now, in this case, we can go back to the publicly available transcript and see what was actually said. But if this had been a private interview — no transcript, no recording — you’d be stuck with the journalist’s paraphrased version, and the framing that comes with it.
So here’s the lesson:
If you’re giving an interview, always have your own record. That might mean bringing someone to take notes. It might mean recording the conversation (with permission if needed). But don’t let someone else be the sole keeper of your message. Because if there’s no other record, the paraphrase is the quote and the journalist sets the agenda for you.
The Spin: Get on the front foot early
Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan didn’t wait for business groups to predictably criticise her plan to legislate a minimum two days’ of working from home each week. She basically said “bring it on”.
Actually, because she’s a grown-up and she runs a state, what Allen really said was:
“There are plenty of bosses who will fight us on this. I’m sure of it.”
In other words, she framed the backlash before it even arrived.
It was a classic example of successful political messaging: anticipate your critics, say their lines out loud, and in doing so, take the sting out of them. When the pushback inevitably came, it felt tired and predictable, exactly as Allan had suggested it would.
More importantly, it reinforced her positioning. She wasn’t picking a fight for the sake of it; she was standing up for workers against bosses, particularly women and carers, who rely on flexibility to stay in the workforce.
Her government’s messaging didn’t stop there. Opponents predictably lobbed the specious argument that not everyone can work from home, so the whole idea is flawed. But the government was already skating to the puck. Allan stood alongside a plumber who supported the reform, despite not being able to work remotely himself. It was a deliberate move to show this wasn’t about privilege or entitlement. And when business groups claimed that working from home was hurting the economy, Allan’s team offered up counterexamples, such as local cafes doing better on weekdays.
This kind of proactive framing blunts and redirects criticism, as well as making it look reactive and unimaginative. And in Allan’s case, it appears to be working. According to The Age, primary support for Victorian Labor has risen from 22 per cent at the start of the year to 32 per cent in July and August. While the premier’s personal approval hasn’t moved much, her signature social policy is seen as a key reason for the government’s turnaround.
It’s a reminder for anyone in the business of persuasion: if you know what your opponents are going to say, don’t wait: say it first and say it better.
Eyes Up: Productivity, cyber, and labour hire
With the federal government’s economic roundtable over, it’s time for everyone who wasn’t in the room to have their say. The Productivity Commission has now released all five of its interim reports looking at how to lift Australia's productivity and is calling for submissions. However, the deadline is 5pm AEST Monday 15 September 2025. The five interim reports are:
These interim releases and the submissions will feed into final reports, which are due to be delivered to the government in December.
The Commonwealth Department of Industry, Science and Resources is conducting a strategic examination of Australia’s research and development (R&D) system. The review aims to identify how Australia can foster more home-grown ideas, expand research, and improve the translation of innovation into national benefit. It is now releasing a series of issues papers exploring evidence and possible future directions for reform. Submissions on the first paper are open until 30 September 2025, and further issues papers will be released progressively for comment. Input is invited from all those with an interest in Australia’s R&D and innovation system, including research organisations, industry, investors, and policy bodies.
The Commonwealth Department of Health, Disability and Ageing is consulting on a Draft National Health and Medical Research Strategy, designed to guide the future of research and innovation, strengthen coordination across the sector, and improve health outcomes nationwide. There are multiple ways to provide input: making a written submission, recording a short video, responding to guiding questions via the online survey, or attending a webinar. Organisations and individuals with a stake in health and medical research, innovation, or policy should consider contributing to ensure the final strategy reflects diverse needs and values.
The Victorian government has opened consultation on its proposed laws to make working from home a legal right. Under the plan, employees whose jobs can reasonably be done remotely would be entitled to work from home for at least two days a week, across both public and private sectors. The consultation is seeking views from employees and businesses to ensure the laws reflect real-world experience: fair, what’s practical, and what’s already working in many workplaces. Feedback will help shape the next stage of the reforms. Victorians can contribute until 28 September 2025.
The New South Wales parliament has launched an inquiry into proposed energy-from-waste facilities at Tarago and Parkes. A select committee will examine the technology, health, and environmental impacts of the projects, including how their performance compares with leading facilities overseas. The terms of reference cover a wide scope: projected emissions and their potential effects on drinking water, soil, and agriculture; lessons from legacy waste issues at Tarago; planning implications for the Parkes Special Activation Precinct; and how other jurisdictions monitor and regulate similar facilities. The committee will also look at alternatives for managing residual waste in Greater Sydney. Submissions are now open, providing an opportunity for stakeholders in environmental management, agriculture, planning, and waste reduction to contribute views and evidence.
On the blog: The latest views from Don’t Verb Nouns
Stonefruit Media's Creative Director, Aarti Betigeri reflects on what’s been lost since the demise of the ABC’s Q&A. In this post, she says the program, for all its faults, offered a kind of modern-day agora, where ideas could be aired, and challenged.
In case you haven’t noticed, there’s a lot going on in US politics of late, with implications for the rest of the world. Bruce Wolpe, a non-resident Senior Fellow at the United States Studies Centre, looks at the status of Australia’s relationship with its major ally in the era of Trump 2.0.
The “eleventieth” season of this delightfully meandering food podcast is here, and it’s worth every minute. Chef Samin Nosrat (Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat) and musician-podcaster Hrishikesh Hirway (Song Exploder) return with jam-making tips, rhubarb tangents, and a recipe mystery. Their chemistry and curiosity make for excellent company. The seasonal cues are a bit Northern Hemisphere, but there’s always the option of a seasonally appropriate re-listen.
This beautifully produced indie travel journal takes a slow, sensory approach to place, with each issue exploring a single country or theme through essays, photography and illustration. The latest instalment is dedicated to islands, featuring dispatches from Sicily to Sri Lanka, Guernsey to Gothenburg.
Been forwarded this email and like what you see?
Subscribe here
to get Between the Lines in your inbox every month. If you have a comms issue you want to discuss, we can help.
